It's been two months since I herniated disks L4 and L5 in my lower back. I’ve always had a great back until that one unfortunate day—3/18/09. I was cleaning out a shed when I went to hoist a heavy box of books. They were books I had in storage from my preaching days, incidentally. I knew right when I did it that things were not going to be good. I drove home barely mobile, and four hours later, if the house had been on fire, I wouldn’t have been able to leave. Family had to tend to me some of the time. I’m doing much better today, having been nursed back to health on plenty of strong painkillers, muscle relaxants, and prolonged bed rest after a brief hospital stay. Word to the wise—don’t lift wrong!

Having briefly mentioned the experience in my discussion forums, our token Christian debater Noel Cookman made the remark that God wasn’t responsible for making bad human bodies because he only “made” Adam and Eve in a perfect state. I love it when Christians make this statement. It’s the ultimate pass-off for the poor design of our bodies. Adam and Eve were perfect. The rest of us just weren’t fortunate enough to be Adam or Eve.

The remains of Adam and Eve we don't have, and if we had them preserved, we'd know it (they'd have no navels, for starters). We would also find genetic perfection (no arthritis, no hemorrhoids, no cancer, nothing that comes from time and the breakdown of genetic coding).

Strangely enough, not one fossilized human being has ever been unearthed that a creationist will point to in support of the “Adam and Eve were perfect” position. They have no problem showing off Darwinism’s many “shortcomings,” but they can’t make a case of their own. This is because every human specimen we have ever found doesn't fit what they would want to hold up and say: “This is an antediluvian body. Look how well-designed it is, atheists!” Every human specimen we ever found had to get put into that ever thickening Post-diluvian file to explain poor health and rickets, shortness and mass deformities due to lack of salt, and the affects of having no medicine and general malnutrition.

Adam supposedly lived 930 years—and no, you can't divide those years down into lesser “years” to make them closer to our “normal” age range. You can try, but you come up with all sorts of absurdities. For instance, if 1 year in the first few chapters of Genesis represents 6 months of our standard year, then the problem doesn't go away because you have 900+ year-old people (half of that is 450—still way out of the ballpark for a human being). Or, if 1 year in the Bible is the equivalent of 3 months of our time, then Kenan who lived 70 years and then had his first child (Genesis 5:12-14) really had his first child at age 23, but didn't die until he was covered in cobwebs at the ripe old age of 298. Even sea turtles don’t live that long! But let's say that a single Genesis year equals only 1 of our months. That means Kenan was not even 6 years old when he had his first son Mahalalel. Still won’t work. We seem to be fighting the tides here.

Our problem is that the smelly genocidal scribblers who wrote Genesis believed that the patriarchs lived lives of great length compared to our own. This is seen to be false when we consider that life spans are longer now than they have ever been, and as stated, we have not one fossilized example to counter this claim. What significance does this have? It means Genesis is wrong and that there were no long-lived patriarchs. But if you believe the Bible, you have to believe that eating forbidden fruit was what destroyed our immortality and later our health.

Because of “the fall of man” we all suffer from weak, piss-poor genetics. These Jehovah-made genetics break down, allowing us to get things like cancer and Brittle Bone Disease. And many Christian crazies buy into the idea that our minds are “fallen” along with our crappy bodies. This is why, we are told, that we don't all see the “truth” that Jesus Christ is the light of God unto salvation. It's because our minds have been ruined by the fall. If it weren't for that, we would have a world full of Christian apologists! Perish the goddamn thought!!!

But maybe the Christians are wrong in their thinking that we are just suffering from “bad” genetics. Maybe God purposely allowed bad backs that lack structural support to remind us when we lift wrong that we are a sinful race, spiritually depraved and worthy of hell. Some still believe that. Our grandparents and great grandparents certainly believed that and would say that.

Maybe God actually created/allowed physical defects to be, as well as mental defects, like retardation and schizophrenia and borderline personality disorders, as some theologians tell us. Maybe Jeebuz had other reasons for these quirky creations. Maybe God created retards because he knew that most of us would be overqualified to work as store greeters or mascots or those people who ring bells and stand in Santa suits, staring off into space, or who stand in traffic in the heat selling newspapers and flowers. You could say that God had to create mental hard drives with lesser capacity so that those lowly occupations could be filled. Doesn't God give us all talents of different kinds?

But in all seriousness, we can't say that. No one with an IQ above 67 can say that bad backs happened because our ancestors sinned or that the mentally defective are merely people of “different talents.” No one can say these things with a straight face, not today.

What does make sense is to say that God is like my old boss Stan. Now Stan owned an advertising company in South Texas for a while and he bought a company car for us new from a Dodge dealership at a very discounted rate. The car was great for the first 50,000 hard-driven miles, but soon the warranty was up, and it began to have problems. In just a few short years, Stan was getting back-talked by every employee around the water cooler because he was just too damn cheap to flip the bill for a new one that could stay out of the shop for longer than 3 days.

That's how God is—too cheap to manage the successful up-keep of our bodies and keep us free from death, debilitating diseases, and crippling conditions. God once did the equivalent of buying new cars, but he's been a cheapskate ever since. Things have only been downhill from there. He supposedly did a good job with Adam and Eve, and the patriarchs got to feel some of that. But we aren't so lucky.

With the possible exception of Jack LaLane, God hasn't sprung for a single solitary machine of quality since ancient times. That means we're all used goods. God's a cheapskate, and nobody really likes a cheapskate except other cheapskates—in this case, theologians and apologists who are responsible for justifying Jeebuz’s thriftiness.

So instead of healing our diseases and giving us good bodies, what does God give us? He gives us the Bible to tell us just how much he loves us and how he used to be willing to make bodies that put ours to a crying shame and would make Lou Ferrigno want to hide in the bushes. And better than that, he gives us theologians and apologists to come up with reasons why God made window-smooching retards and bad backs. Lame!

17
comments:

I am so sorry to hear about what happened to your back at the same time happy to hear your progress, thanks to science and medicine!

That's how life is or to put it more frankly, that's how God is. There is God and Satan. If that is is too religious and christian, let me put it this way - there is Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, times of sowing and times of reaping, times of joys and times of tears. A christian may go further to say there is death and there is life, a Adam and a Jesus!

I'd love to leave you with this line of my beloved Paul,

-Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day - Paul (2 Cor 4:16)

<< "The remains of Adam and Eve we don't have, and if we had them preserved, we'd know it (they'd have no navels, for starters). We would also find genetic perfection (no arthritis, no hemorrhoids, no cancer, nothing that comes from time and the breakdown of genetic coding)." >>

If you are going to debunk Christian teaching, then surely you ought to get your facts straight.

1. Adam and Eve were created perfect, but then fell and died just like the rest of us. Their bodies aged, they got sick... who knows, maybe even died of cancer or some other disease. There will be no genetically perfect dead thing discovered.

2. What makes you think that every human being that lived can be found in fossils, especially with their skin in tact to confirm the lack of a belly button? A scientist would know that the majority of dead things do not fossilize.

You are very angry and seem willing to waste your life debunking something that doesn't exist. You should really find something else to spend your few years on, don't you think? Or perhaps there is something still in you that believes it could still be true?

I am so sorry to hear about what happened to your back at the same time happy to hear your progress, thanks to science and medicine!"

My reply...

Now this doesn't seem to jive with what you are about to say.

edson said...

"That's how life is or to put it more frankly, that's how God is."

My reply...

Yeah, when you're in trouble, it's best not to give an answer or try to explain.

edson said...

"There is God and Satan. If that is is too religious and christian, let me put it this way - there is Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, times of sowing and times of reaping, times of joys and times of tears. A christian may go further to say there is death and there is life, a Adam and a Jesus!"

My reply...

There ya go! And I guess water, steam, and ice means there's a trinity!

edson said...

"I'd love to leave you with this line of my beloved Paul,

-Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day - Paul (2 Cor 4:16)"

"If you are going to debunk Christian teaching, then surely you ought to get your facts straight.

1. Adam and Eve were created perfect, but then fell and died just like the rest of us. Their bodies aged, they got sick... who knows, maybe even died of cancer or some other disease. There will be no genetically perfect dead thing discovered."

My reply...

It takes time for the things I mentioned to occur, and true genetic perfection would not degenerate that quickly. Just in the last 100 years, things like Scleroderma have been discovered. They appear to be recent arrivals. There is no record of them before the last century. And many geneticists would agree with me: for the nonsense of Genesis to be true, there'd have to be loads of genetic differences that we would be able to observe if we could study them.

Ryan said...

"2. What makes you think that every human being that lived can be found in fossils, especially with their skin in tact to confirm the lack of a belly button? A scientist would know that the majority of dead things do not fossilize."

My reply...

Ok, I hereby inform you that you've used up your stupid points for the day. No more grace period. You missed the part where I said "if we had them preserved." At no time did I say or imply that the majority of dead things fossilize. Very few formerly living things fossilize, but that, unfortunately, is precisely why it's so easy to hide your in ignorance. Still, it won't keep you from attacking evolution.

Ryan...

"You are very angry and seem willing to waste your life debunking something that doesn't exist. You should really find something else to spend your few years on, don't you think? Or perhaps there is something still in you that believes it could still be true?"

My reply...

This is what I call the Heavenly Guilt Swoop. It's where the believer turns around and says, "Well, you appear to care a lot about the subject matter. Maybe you still believe!" Such crap, but so funny.

I noticed in all of your comments you never made a reply to what I was attacking. Why do our bodies suck?

<< "Ok, I hereby inform you that you've used up your stupid points for the day. No more grace period. You missed the part where I said "if we had them preserved." At no time did I say or imply that the majority of dead things fossilize. Very few formerly living things fossilize, but that, unfortunately, is precisely why it's so easy to hide your in ignorance. Still, it won't keep you from attacking evolution." >>

Yes, I see my reading mistake. Will have to try to read more carefully next time... especially if your grace reservoir is that shallow.

I was responding to your argument, not making a case based on lack of fossils against Evolution. BTW, no sane person attacks facts. I might question them to be sure of what the facts are, but I can't question the facts. However, many times people end up claiming more than the facts as facts. The story is not the fact no matter how closely it seems to tie the facts together.

<< "I noticed in all of your comments you never made a reply to what I was attacking. Why do our bodies suck?" >>

Because the one who designed them cursed us because of our sin. Indeed, God made Adam and Eve perfect, but through their sin they brought upon themselves the curse of God (and onto the whole of creation to boot), and because we are their offspring, we inherited the curse.

Ryan: Because the one who designed them cursed us because of our sin. Indeed, God made Adam and Eve perfect, but through their sin they brought upon themselves the curse of God (and onto the whole of creation to boot), and because we are their offspring, we inherited the curse.There is something that was always deeply disturbing to me about the whole Adam/Eve myth. And I mean disturbing beyond the whole supernatural origination. I find the whole story to be so... ethically upside down. There is certainly more wrong with the story than this, but you certainly point out part of it:* god made them perfect* but they were not perfect and they sinned (which makes me think they weren't so perfect)* their sin was eating a fruit that gave them knowledge* but they didn't have knowledge until they ate the fruit* they were punished for doing something they didn't understand was wrong* and every person after them was punishedImagine, just for a second, doing that to your own child. Your child has no understanding that something was wrong and commits some act you deem "a sin." You punish the child, fully knowing that they did not understand. And this is no small punishment, you turn them from an immortal to a mortal and make their life painful. Now, just to be thorough, you wait for them to have your grandbaby. Then, you go ahead and give a painful punishment to that child.

Ryan writes: "Indeed, God made Adam and Eve perfect, but through their sin they brought upon themselves the curse of God (and onto the whole of creation to boot)"

God being God, couldn't He have devised a system where people are held responsible in their own bodies for the things THEY do and not inherit some dumb-ass "curse" because someone "6,000" years ago ate a freaking apple?

Look, I appreciate some elements of Christian thought and moral theology, but really, can we just keep some of the ideals and jettison this voodoo nonsense?

* god made them perfect> Yes, though to be more accurate, the Bible says "very good". The idea is that God did not create people to have disease, or die or with sin or evil within them.

* but they were not perfect and they sinned (which makes me think they weren't so perfect)> God did not create Adam and Eve with evil within them, but He did create them with the ability to rebel against Him or choose to do wrong. As such, they were completely free moral agents in their original state. This moral free will is a good thing... it means we aren't mere robots. Nevertheless, moral free will can be also used for bad.

* their sin was eating a fruit that gave them knowledge> The word used here is the same word used when we read that "Adam knew Eve." I believe that the temptation was to experience "good and evil" and therefore know it in a more intimate way. It is an increase in knowledge through experience. However, once they sinned, their experience of evil brought an experience of shame and guilt...and rightly so.

* but they didn't have knowledge until they ate the fruit> Given my explanation above,

* they were punished for doing something they didn't understand was wrong> They understood it was wrong because God said not to do it and what the result would be. What they didn't comprehend was how things would change when they actually rebelled. They were supposed to trust the one who had created them.

* and every person after them was punished.> In a way you are right. However, since there is a way out provided for those who put their trust in God, and the reality of eternity in comparison to this short life, this isn't really that terrible of a thing. It sucks for the atheist though because this is the only life he has to look forward to.

Spork Wrote:Imagine, just for a second, doing that to your own child. Your child has no understanding that something was wrong and commits some act you deem "a sin." You punish the child, fully knowing that they did not understand. And this is no small punishment, you turn them from an immortal to a mortal and make their life painful. Now, just to be thorough, you wait for them to have your grandbaby. Then, you go ahead and give a painful punishment to that child.

My Response:But Adam and Eve were told what they were allowed to do and what they were not to do and the consequences of doing the wrong thing. They were not without understanding. And it was not like putting a plate of cookies in an empty kitchen...it was a single tree in the middle of a garden full of trees they were allowed to eat from. Kindof like a cookie smorgasborg and being told not to eat those white cookies, but being allowed to eat any of the rest (the 98%). Other than this, your example does seem harsh. That is, if you are only thinking of this life, its the pits for sure. But God didn't subject his "grandchildren" to sin and death to torture them, but in the hopes that through this they would seek after Him as their provider and healer.

James wrote:"God being God, couldn't He have devised a system where people are held responsible in their own bodies for the things THEY do and not inherit some dumb-ass 'curse' because someone '6,000' years ago ate a freaking apple?"I imagine you think you would have obeyed...obeyed the God you don't want to believe in?

It wasn't really the thing they ate that is important... it just had to be some token by which they could make a conscious choice. And BTW, Eve was deceived but Adam was not. This was because Adam saw God creating the animals before Eve was created and so He had more information... he would know from his own experience that he could not become like God and do the things He does. And He didn't help inform Eve and let her be deceived.

If this account is a myth and fairytale, then there is no real foundation for the Christian faith and Jesus needing to redeem man seems crazy and unnecessary. I guess you feel the goo-to-man myth is more believable...

"It wasn't really the thing they ate that is important... it just had to be some token by which they could make a conscious choice. And BTW, Eve was deceived but Adam was not. This was because Adam saw God creating the animals before Eve was created and so He had more information... he would know from his own experience that he could not become like God and do the things He does. And He didn't help inform Eve and let her be deceived."

My reply...

Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Create man knowing what he's going to do, and then damn him when he inevitably chooses to do what Jehovah knew man would do to begin with.

Ryan said...

"If this account is a myth and fairytale, then there is no real foundation for the Christian faith and Jesus needing to redeem man seems crazy and unnecessary. I guess you feel the goo-to-man myth is more believable."

My reply...

Yes, it does seem crazy because it is. That system, all of it, is crazy. As for the "goo(d)-to-man" myth of which you speak, I'm not familiar with that one. I always thought it was lifeforms fighting to survive and adapting socially in the ways that most benefit the struggle, but if instinctual kindness is a myth, then it's still more credible than yours.

Ryan writes: "I guess you feel the goo-to-man myth is more believable"

It's intriguing to me that just because one doesn't buy the tall tales of the Bible that one necessarily must be a die-hard Darwinist or even that they are an atheist.

For the record, I think it's rational to believe that a sort of "higher power" created the universe. I'm completely open to Creationism. However, it also seems somewhat apparent that this Creator has either dozed off or has left for greener pastures.

To think that this same apparently imaginative Creator micromanaged an ancient tribe to the extent that the wrong clothing or incense would send him into a rage or that He required the spilling of the blood of animals to assuage His ever peevish mood is just beyond my capacity. Scripture paints God as a brutish child, and the whole book could have been penned by Lewis Carroll. Instead of a talking hare, Alice would just have dealt with talking snakes, forbidden apples, 900-year-old men, a magic wand that makes water come from stones and lakes that spontaneously part.

The thing is, Ryan, if you expect me to be "open" to the claims of the Bible, under what pretext should I reject the claims of Mormonism, or Buddhism or Scientology? Are they somehow simply MORE absurd?

If this account is a myth and fairytale, then there is no real foundation for the Christian faith and Jesus needing to redeem man seems crazy and unnecessary. I guess you feel the goo-to-man myth is more believable...I'd continue this, but ... well, you put this so well. I could not have said it better myself. Does it sound like fairytale? Detach yourself from the emotional ties to it. Do you see things being created out of thin air often? Do snakes talk to you? Or, to switch metaphors, do talking burning bushes talk to you?

So miracle metaphysics went on for a few thousand years, then disappeared?

Is the "goo-to-man myth" more believable? Well, things with supporting evidence are generally more believable, yes. It explains a whole lot -- both going back a bazillion years and in current biological and medical science.

But, we both know this argument cannot really go anywhere. Your views on metaphysics (miracles and the supernatural) and your views on epistemology (belief that knowledge can come from revelations and from "it feels right") are incompatible with logical discussion.

The thing is, Ryan, if you expect me to be "open" to the claims of the Bible, under what pretext should I reject the claims of Mormonism...It's funny to me, too, James. Mormonism is really Christianity 2.1. It incorporates all of Christianity and adds some very silly stories involving hearing voices revealing some additional truth.

It is really funny to hear christians poopoo it and ridicule it. Yet, it reads just like the Bible. It's not that they disbelieve the New/Old Testament. They just added a Newer testament to the end of it.

Poor design? Our bodies have made us the most successful and long-lived vertebrate on the planet. Evolutionarily, they make the right tradeoffs between reliability and energy requirements. Well, they used to. These days, with nearly unlimited food for many of us, more reliability is a better tradeoff.

"Poor design? Our bodies have made us the most successful and long-lived vertebrate on the planet. Evolutionarily, they make the right tradeoffs between reliability and energy requirements. Well, they used to. These days, with nearly unlimited food for many of us, more reliability is a better tradeoff."

My reply...

Oh, you're a jewel, aren't you!

Maybe your misunderstanding has something to do with the fact that WE HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND VERY LONG. Not even 2 million years ago and we were something else.

Our cousins, the apes, now those bodies have something going for them when compared to our own.